Agenda item - BH2013/03524 - 2 Barn Rise, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two storey five bedroom dwelling with garage incorporating installation of solar panels, revised access and driveway, boundary wall and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two storey five bedroom dwelling with garage incorporating installation of solar panels, revised access and driveway, boundary wall and associated works.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Guy Everest, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans, elevational drawings and matters on the late list. The application site related to a detached bungalow that formed part of a group of four properties with open space at the front. The proposed new house would have a hipped roof and gabled sections. The proposed scale and form was considered acceptable, and it was felt that the loss of symmetry to the existing group of four properties would not cause harm. Landscaping was proposed on the site to mitigate the loss of the trees, and the level of separation from the neighbouring property was considered acceptable. It was noted the house would reach code level 3 for sustainability and there would no off street parking. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)                   Mr Ian Wright spoke in opposition to the application and stated that his home formed one of the four houses in the group, and the bungalow formed part of a symmetrical row of properties onto the open space in front which had a ‘village green feeling to it.’ The replacement of the bungalow would change the character which was worth preserving. It was noted that a previous application for a new property had been refused for reasons relating to the bulk and siting and loss of the character of the four properties. Mr Wright considered that the changes made since the refusal of the previous application had not been so significant as to grant the application, and he referenced small changes to the height and the footprint. In summary Mr Wright reiterated the current symmetrical layout and noted the number of local people that objected to the scheme.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Gilbey it was confirmed by Mr Wright that one of the properties in the group of four had a substantial dormer window.

(4)                   Ms Kathryn Mansi spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the agent; she stated that following the refusal of the first scheme changes had been made to the scale and the orientation, and it was noted many of the objections in relation to this application had been about matters that only related to the previously refused application. The removal of the large trees would be replaced with three fruit trees, and there were no objections from technical consultees. In relation to the existing dormer on the neighbouring house it was noted that this overlooked the plot significantly, and the proposed house did not have any issues with overlooking. In relation to the symmetry there was a very limited point at which this could be appreciated; the view was also obscured by a tree and had been altered by the dormer and the addition of a garage. Careful consideration had been given to the materials in consultation with the Local Planning Authority, and the property would be energy efficient.

(5)                   Councillor Davey asked about the reasons for refusal in relation to the symmetry, and in response Ms Mansi stated that this had been addressed through the re-siting of the property, and the property now read as part of Eldridge Avenue with similar building heights.

(6)                   In relation to sustainability in response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained by Ms Mansi that whilst the property would be energy efficient increasing this level would create higher development costs.

Questions for Officers

(7)                   In response to Councillor C. Theobald comparisons were provided between the proposed scheme and the previously refused one. It was also noted that the reduction in height was significant as it allowed the height of the property to read with Elridge Avenue rather than Barn Rise, and it would be difficult to argue that the proposed property was not in keeping with those on Elridge Avenue.

(8)                   In response to Councillor Cox the Senior Planning Officer stated that it was likely the large dormer had been constructed under permitted development rights.

(9)                   Councillor Hyde asked about the loss of the symmetry and the Senior Planning Officer explained that it was felt this had already been undermined with the addition of the dormer, and the area was predominantly two-storey houses and was not protected as part of a conservation area.

(10)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the dormer would look onto a blank wall of the proposed house; there was a condition to prevent future occupiers adding windows to this aspect.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)               Councillor Duncan noted he was in support of the scheme, but he would have preferred a higher level of sustainability. He went on to add that in general he was in support of this type of development to protect the urban fringe in the city through more efficient use of existing sites.

(12)               Councillor Hyde stated that she liked the appearance and design of the building, but she felt it was bulky and had concerns about the close proximity of the dormer windows. She added that the loss of symmetry was not mitigated by the gains at the site and for these reasons she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(13)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that it was still important to have a supply of bungalows in the city’s housing stock. She felt that the scale was not too different from the previously refused scheme and had concerns about the loss of symmetry and the outlook for the dormer of the neighbouring property. She stated her preference would have been for a less bulky design.

(14)               Councillor Littman stated that the symmetry had been lost, and he felt it would be wrong to refuse permission for a two storey building given that the properties on either side were two-storey.

(15)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was approved on a vote of 10 in support with 2 against.

154.2    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to be GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.